With the attitude shown towards the Salo BR that is obviously deemed OK or acceptable for many there is little incentive for improvement and we might have to put up with similarly underwhelming transfers for the foreseeable future.

It is good to see that in the end both Torsten Kaiser and Robert A Harris confirm that this is a subpar Blu-Ray. No matter what the exact production process was, the end result is disappointing.

a) It demonstrates the effects of collective brainwashing and indoctrination. Over at Blu-ray.com there is a smearing campaign going on against AVS and its 'shameful' use of stills to scare innocent, unsuspecting citizens away from perfectly good Blu Ray discs which have to be purchased and enjoyed, not analysed for quality and criticised! Never mind if the criticism is sound and supported by numerous verifiable facts. The result of this campaign is that people who use stills can not be believed on principle, their arguments don't count, their evidence can be safely ignored, their competence denied and their 'mission' ridiculed. Even if they moved on from stills and watched the whole transfer. Each and all possible explanation comes handy to dismiss the results:
- stills are not usable for judging quality
- laymen have no business interpreting stills
- stills are misinterpreted
- everything is blown out of proportion
- you don't work in the industry so you know nothing to begin with
- some people claim nonsense so everybody else claims nonsense as well
- these are x year old transfers, once a new transfer is made all is fine
- This is how it's supposed to look! How dare you questioning the decisions of world
famous xy with 100 titles on his resume and 5 Oscars!?
- this is about putting down Blu Ray and comes from pissed of HD-DVD supporters
- They are crazy over there at AVS and the industry ignores them, so shall we.
- ...

b) If you follow this cult you no longer have to discuss actual evidence and image quality details. The verdict has already been passed in advance. No need to investigate someting yourself and think for yourself. Guru x has done that for you already. He can be trusted 100%. And if he hasn't you still know the 'other side' can't be right, because they are the 'other side'.

c) Pereception of reality gets narrowed down. Every detail that fits the prejudice is welcomed with open arms, everything that does not fit in is ignored and rejected.
It has become a matter of faith, a religion. The fact that insider Kaiser basically confirmed my verdict and thereby did not confirm Doctor A's claim of my incompetence is conveniently ignored. So is insider Robert Harris' preliminary impression based on the stills.

d) If necessary resort to dishonest moves, censor and 'excommunicate'. There was another posting in this thread by me. The last. It was removed. In it I apologized to BFI to the extent that I suggested they called the shots on the transfer and not just agreed to release it as (poor as) it is. I guess it did not look right to kick me out after I apologized while Doctor A never apologized to me and of course, does not get kicked out for attacking me.

Thank God people have their own eyes and most people can think for themselves, are willing to learn something new in a while and exercise their rights as consumers when they don't feel that cost and benefit are in a proper balance.
As some other posted said so fittingly in the TDK thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't fall prey to any hyperbole. I have my own eyes ,my own opinion, my own mind and no internet police will change it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm no fan of Blu-ray.com or many of the people who post there, but quite frankly there's some validity to these particular points.

(I am not referring to Salo specifically, but rather the general hysteria that has infested this forum in recent months.)

Sure, some claims are nonsense. Separate the good from the bad, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the criticism is also very justified. And some is not. Which is which must be discussed soberly. People are going overboard on both sides. A reasonable middle ground position is more and more difficult to maintain.

I'm no fan of Blu-ray.com or many of the people who post there, but quite frankly there's some validity to these particular points.

(I am not referring to Salo specifically, but rather the general hysteria that has infested this forum in recent months.)

Certainly there is some hysteria.....Take as an example The Dark Knight gets released and is not perfect you get some people saying they are going to cancel their order but then the flipside of the coin is the reviews which give it 5/5 or 10/10 etc etc.....No HD release with any EE in deserves absolute top marks and i'm sure you would agree with that.

I think people would be better served by looking not only at the negatives but at the positives and then deciding for themselves how good the film looks on Blu Ray as we all perceive things differently....Some don't mind EE that much while others don't mind DNR much and then there are the people who can't stand watching films with any EE or DNR or the people like myself who can accept mild EE or DNR even if they would prefer none.

This thread was created because of the hysteria by some people who thought even a little grain was enough to label a film transfer as being bad thus the title film grain allowed and of course those who think just because a film has a softer image or doesn't have that "3D PoP" it's bad which of course isn't true either thus the artistic intent part...It doesn't mean all films with grain in them could make the list as there can be other problems with a transfer.

I'm going to try to keep from falling into the hysteria myself and i can see good in transfers like The Dark Knight which isn't perfect but certainly isn't the worst transfer ever....More inconsistent than anything else with some really detailed parts...Then some average parts....Some below average shots and some above average....You get my point though.

Feel free to nominate any films you think deserve to be on this list here though and feel free to also negative any on the list as the aim is to make the list better and more accurate as time goes by.

Sure, some claims are nonsense. Separate the good from the bad, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the criticism is also very justified. And some is not. Which is which must be discussed soberly. People are going overboard on both sides. A reasonable middle ground position is more and more difficult to maintain.

The release of TDK on BD seems to have acted as an accelerant to create a particularly incendiary moment in all of this.

Sure, some claims are nonsense. Separate the good from the bad, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the criticism is also very justified. And some is not. Which is which must be discussed soberly. People are going overboard on both sides. A reasonable middle ground position is more and more difficult to maintain.

I couldn't agree more.

Sometimes I am almost afraid to say that I do not see EE on a screen cap that supposedly shows it for fear of being labeled "blind" or ignorant. I did this in the TDK thread, and was relieved to see that there were several other people who couldn't see the EE in the capture either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick99

The release of TDK on BD seems to have acted as an accelerant to create a particularly incendiary moment in all of this.

Sure, some claims are nonsense. Separate the good from the bad, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the criticism is also very justified. And some is not. Which is which must be discussed soberly. People are going overboard on both sides. A reasonable middle ground position is more and more difficult to maintain.

People going overboard on both sides is what lets this escalate in the first place, although lately it seems that some Blu-Ray at all cost supporters like to claim that the more critical among us like only 1% of all releases which is so blatantly exaggerated that I do not really know how to go from there in a discussion.

Maybe what would help if there would be more threads about movies that look really good to strike some kind of balance and give AVS a more positive outlook, but most of the time I also prefer to enjoy great transfers and not to post about them so I am guilty myself of mostly complaining when I do not like something not praising the good.

Of course we already have this thread by Foxy (thanks for the great idea of yours) which is mostly positive and I try to contribute impressive titles to it regularly and so should everybody else but I think single threads about deserving movies should be more plentiful, too so that people who come here also know what movies to get not only which movies are bad - after all people want to buy something and feel good about.

BTW: I have nominated Blazing Saddles and nobody else has seconded my nomination so far - have you watched it ?

Sometimes I am almost afraid to say that I do not see EE on a screen cap that supposedly shows it for fear of being labeled "blind" or ignorant. I did this in the TDK thread, and was relieved to see that there were several other people who couldn't see the EE in the capture either.

This is an unfortunate situation but I think in the case you are referring to you were also shown a lot of respect even from those that tried to show you where there were in fact enhanced edges, so this is a case that went as it should be - you do not HAVE to see and those who did were not insulting you after you admitted as much.

Personally I immediately have a feeling I am seeing something that is overenhanced when comparing the clown on Blu-Ray to the prologue - I would not wish that perception on others as it is rather distracting but I see it nonetheless. On the other hand I am rather indifferent to the kind of compression artefacts that supposedly can be seen in some scenes in Ironman and other movies which is probably in part caused by me not watching a 50 fl picture and still using a CRT projector.

Black Hawk Down and Casino Royale both look excellent. But alot of my friends think they are too grainy...I happen to like the grain, gives it a gritty quality.

the main issue i think is to much dnr is used on some titles.
as you know to much dnr eats away detail.
plus i think some people want a video game look to film.
man thats just so wrong.

i know bill hunt and others are pushing the studios to stop using so much dnr.its funny when you go to the movies i never hear about grain issues
its an issue when the film comes to blu-ray.

its film...........film has grain it is what it is and you can't be a lover of films if you think theres to much grain in the bd .

another thing is the whole hd thing of ''they want the look out your window look'' which has and never will happen with film.film is film!
the only way to get that look out your window look is you have to shoot in hd and process it all the way to the bd player.

...lately it seems that some Blu-Ray at all cost supporters like to claim that the more critical among us like only 1% of all releases which is so blatantly exaggerated that I do not really know how to go from there in a discussion.

I rate the PQ for all titles in my collection and roughly 1/3 of all Blu-rays got a 5/5 from me because I think the film couldn't look better given the format. Another 1/3 got 4.5/5. Even though I complain a lot this shows I'm still quite satisfied so far. It's simply that the good titles don't get the passionate discussions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs

BTW: I have nominated Blazing Saddles and nobody else has seconded my nomination so far - have you watched it ?

I watched it some time ago (have the HD DVD) and thought it looked great. Count this as a second vote if you like but I usually don't vote for titles I haven't seen lately.

This is an unfortunate situation but I think in the case you are referring to you were also shown a lot of respect even from those that tried to show you where there were in fact enhanced edges, so this is a case that went as it should be - you do not HAVE to see and those who did were not insulting you after you admitted as much.

I agree Oliver. It was nice to see.

Quote:

Personally I immediately have a feeling I am seeing something that is overenhanced when comparing the clown on Blu-Ray to the prologue - I would not wish that perception on others as it is rather distracting but I see it nonetheless. On the other hand I am rather indifferent to the kind of compression artefacts that supposedly can be seen in some scenes in Ironman and other movies which is probably in part caused by me not watching a 50 fl picture and still using a CRT projector.

I have watched discs that look edgy to me too, yet I don't see the tell tale signs of what we consider "Edge Enhancement": the outline or halo around certain hard edged objects.

I think The Fifth Element looks pretty darn good overall, but it too has a bit of a over enhanced/processed look to it, without necessarily having typical EE.

Interview with a Vampire - Very filmlike image. Certainly a softer shot movie, but seemed to be transferred well to Blu-ray. Film grain structure intact.

Matrix Reloaded - Not quite as detailed, but less edgy than the first movie. There's still just a tad of EE in some scenes, but I don't think it's enough to warrant the minor issues list. Film grain is tight, but visible. All in all, a fairly natural image.

I would like to nominate "The Day The Earth Stood Still". It looks like film, with no EE or grain removal. It's simply a joy to watch this film.

Thanks will add it to the nomination list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidHir

I'd like to nominate:

Interview with a Vampire - Very filmlike image. Certainly a softer shot movie, but seemed to be transferred well to Blu-ray. Film grain structure intact.

Matrix Reloaded - Not quite as detailed, but less edgy than the first movie. There's still just a tad of EE in some scenes, but I don't think it's enough to warrant the minor issues list. Film grain is tight, but visible. All in all, a fairly natural image.

I watched Heathers over the weekend, and despite having seen the movie about a dozen times before, watching the Blu-ray was more enjoyable than the first time. The image holds up very nicely with a natural, film-like look and well-compressed grain. It's good to see that such a wonderful film has been handled with competent care.

Looking at the list, I think a few more titles are worth nominating. Die Hard, Die Hard with a Vengeance and Young Frankenstein deserve mention for preservation of grain.

Die Hard with a Vengeance in particular is one of the biggest improvements I've seen over DVD. The 2-disc "5-star collection" DVD that I have of it is horrendous with every problem one can think of (DNR, EE, horrid compression artifacts, etc.). The Blu-ray was a tremendously welcome surprise.

Thanks everyone i will add Heathers, Die Hard, Die Hard With A Vengeance, Young Frankenstein and La Femme Nikita to the nomination list.

Thats a few people now saying La Femme Nikita looks very good and since i really enjoy the film and it's been a few years since i saw it i may buy it - Just waiting to hear if the subtitles are better on this edition than the old DVD edition.

Thanks everyone i will add Heathers, Die Hard, Die Hard With A Vengeance, Young Frankenstein and La Femme Nikita to the nomination list.

Thats a few people now saying La Femme Nikita looks very good and since i really enjoy the film and it's been a few years since i saw it i may buy it - Just waiting to hear if the subtitles are better on this edition than the old DVD edition.

I'm a big fan of Luc Besson in general, and this title in particular, so I am really looking forward to this one as well.

I rate the PQ for all titles in my collection and roughly 1/3 of all Blu-rays got a 5/5 from me because I think the film couldn't look better given the format. Another 1/3 got 4.5/5. Even though I complain a lot this shows I'm still quite satisfied so far. It's simply that the good titles don't get the passionate discussions.

No the good discs do not get discussed much - how would they when everybody is in agreement ? So I see you are another one of these negative people who are not that negative after all

Quote:

Originally Posted by micnic77

I watched it some time ago (have the HD DVD) and thought it looked great. Count this as a second vote if you like but I usually don't vote for titles I haven't seen lately.

It has been some time for me, also but I got shortly before Mutiny on the Bounty and oh what a difference ! Here was a relatively low budget 35mm western beating out a big budget 70mm movie and by quite a margin, too !

Thanks Oliver. I watched TDK last night, and you know what I was thinking? "This reminds me of TFE with the digital/processed look".

I thought TDK looked quite good overall, with the exception of the digital processed look. Just like TFE.

TDK looked a little more processed and sharpened to me than TFE. I like the look of TFE, and TDK wasn't horrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it did not remind me of watching film. Best as I can describe it is that it looked digital. So does TFE, but not as much to me.

TDK looked a little more processed and sharpened to me than TFE. I like the look of TFE, and TDK wasn't horrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it did not remind me of watching film. Best as I can describe it is that it looked digital. So does TFE, but not as much to me.

Just wondering if Wanted was shot with digital cameras or not and if so i should really add it to the digital camera shot list instead of the main list.

Anyone know ?

Just got a chance to view some scenes from The Nightmare Before Christmas and not that pleased at the scenes i looked at....Seems totally scrubbed of all grain and features softer scenes in the scenes which have had the grain scrubbing that i checked out ( in my opinion ) Totally different to the PAL DVD i have and that disc has a grain structure although obviously lower resolution. Sure some animation especially CGI animation is fine with a smooth look but this one should have had some grain preserved for a better image - Hopefully when i finally watch it on the 24th December this Nightmare will end up being a pleasant dream but as someone who has seen this film countless times i'm not that impressed as others by what i have seen so far when flicking through the Blu Ray edition.

Just watched Eraser yesterday and it does have soft scenes in it but i feel thats due to the anamorphic cameras and film stock used and not because of excessive DNR and i also didnt see any excessive EE or other major issues - I was originally a little harsh on this one but i actually feel it deserves to be on this list so will nominate it. Oh and sorry to Gary for my comments to him in another thread as i now feel he was right with this particular film.

My Lost Season 4 arrived today as well as The X Files - Fight The Future and i'm looking forward to watching both of these soon as well as Step Brothers and The Chronicles of Narnia - Prince Caspian....I think going by reviews i have read the latter two titles may well have good enough transfers to be on the list here but that'll be up to the nominations and i'll wait till i have viewed before i pass comment.